英国上诉法庭（Court of Appeal）于7月11号宣判，推翻了先前法庭的决定,维护移民局对家庭团聚类签证设立最低收入标准的规定。该诉讼案件涉及英国移民局对英国公民或定居居民申请其欧盟经济区以外的伴侣来英国定居，该英国担保人必须要证明他们至少有18600英镑的年收入，此外如果有孩子还要能够提供额外的收入证明。

上诉法院裁决认为，该收入要求是合法的。上诉法院得出这一结论主要基于此移民条例只是一项行政政策，表明法院并不愿意干预政府决策。此案很可能将继续上诉到英国联邦最高法院（the Supreme Court）。

原文连接-

Courtof Appeal rules on family migration and the minimum income threshold

The Court of Appealhas today handed down a decision ([2014] EWCA Civ 985) in which it hasallowed the Home Secretary’s appeal against Mr Justice Blake’s judgment in MMand others v Secretary of State [2013] EWHC 1900 Admin. The case concernsthe Home Secretary’s controversial rules on family migration requiring thatBritish Citizens or partners lawfully settled in the UK must show that they have anincome of at least £18,600 p.a. with additional sums for each child before theycan sponsor their foreign partners from outside the European Economic Area.

The Court of Appealhas held that the requirements are lawful. The court reached this conclusionessentially on the basis that it was not for the court to analyse the basis ofthe Secretary of State’s decision to introduce such requirements into theimmigration rules which are merely statements of administrative policy. Thetest adopted by the court is the same as that which it adopted in Bibi[2013] EWCA Civ 322 (the case concerning the English language requirement),namely that it is enough that the Secretary of State should have a ‘rationalbelief’ that the policy embodied in the requirements will achieve theidentified aim. This is an extremely restrained form of judicial review andsuggests a lack of willingness to interfere with governmental decisions. Thistest seems to conflict with the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in casessuch as Baiai [2008] UKHL 53 and Quila [2011] UKSC 45 wherethe court adopted a rigorous analysis in assessing the evidence and used a testrequiring the Secretary of State to show an objective justification.

TheSupreme Court has already granted permission to appeal in Bibi onarguments which include the argument that the test of a mere rational belief iswrong. It is likely that the present case will also proceed to the SupremeCourt.